On 17 January 2014 08:40, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16 January 2014 03:51, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> (SNIP)
>>> Still, the fact remains that if your local realistic time-symmetric
>>> theory of physics *is* a dynamical one where later conditions can be
>>> derived from initial conditions, then the argument I made in the previous
>>> comment you quoted should still apply, and in that case time-symmetry
>>> without very specially-chosen initial boundary conditions will be of no
>>> help in explaining how Bell's inequality can be violated. So it's not
>>> correct to just say that Bell assumed time was asymmetric, and thus that
>>> the type of time-symmetry we see in *existing* theories of physics like
>>> quantum field theory is enough to discount his proof. In terms of a Venn
>>> diagram, there would be an overlap between the circle "time-symmetric (or
>>> CPT-symmetric) local realistic theories" and "theories that satisfy the
>>> assumptions of Bell's proof", and all existing time-symmetric theories
>>> (except for general relativity in non-globally-hyperbolic spacetimes) would
>>> fall into that overlap region. Price may be correct that the general *idea*
>>> of time-symmetry points to a possible loophole in Bell's proof, but taking
>>> advantage of this loophole would require a new and different type of
>>> time-symmetric theory from the ones physicists have used in the past to
>>> model real-world situations.
I don't *think* Price is thinking of a "dynamical theory" (assuming I've
understood you correctly) ... But in any case, please note that in quoting
Price I am not proposing an explanation, or even taking a position, I am
only pointing out that there is the logical possibility that an explanation
could be constructed on this basis.

So, I am merely pointing out that when someone says "Bell made exactly 3
assumptions..." that isn't true, so anything we deduce on the basis of him
having made exactly 3 assumptions will be false (or at best, only
accidentally true). And hence, until the 4th assumption is either
incorportated into an explanation of BI violations, or shown to be
irrelevant to them, we will not be in a position to say "EPR shows that
physics is either non-local or non-realistic".

Everything else I've said on this subject has been in response to people
trying to argue that physics is not time symmetric. So far all such
arguments have been a variant on "the second law says so" and my response
has been a variant on "the second law emerges above the level at which we
can detect time symmetry". (Plus I've invoked boundary conditions on the
universe to explain how the second law can arise from time symmetric

However, I don't have the technical knowledge to either construct an
explanation of EPR on this basis, or to show that one can't be constructed.

But I do think it's high time someone did, if they haven't already done so.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to